Smoking ordinance back on the table County Council to review the measure at a public hearing Tuesday.

January 14, 2006|JAMES WENSITS Tribune Political Writer

SOUTH BEND -- The hotly debated and oft-revised anti-smoking ordinance faces public scrutiny and possibly more revision at a public hearing Tuesday before the County Council. "I think the votes are there for restaurants only," Council member Andrew Kostielney, R-District B, said as he reviewed the latest version of the measure in the council office Friday. The council member also complained because "it's Friday, the vote is Tuesday" and he was just seeing the final version of what he termed "major sweeping legislation, one of the most intense things we've done." Kostielney's "restaurant-only" suggestion, if adopted, would seriously water down the measure now before the Council. In its current form, the bill would not only limit smoking in restaurants but in most public areas as well as in private businesses, including employee break rooms. The ordinance would cover the entire county, including the cities of South Bend and Mishawaka and the various towns. "No smoking" signs would have to be posted in retail stores and shopping malls, work sites, libraries, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums and even public parks. Smoking would be allowed in private homes and cars, family-owned businesses in which all employees are related to the owner, and in hotel and motel rooms designated as smoking rooms. Retail tobacco stores, tobacco bars, private clubs, bars and taverns would also be exempt. To be exempt, bars and taverns could not allow any patron or employee younger than 18 to enter the facility. Bars in restaurants could not allow smoking unless the bar area is on a separate floor or separated from the restaurant area by walls, windows or doors. The ordinance would allow a two-year phase-in period for those food service establishments that can certify food sales of less than $450,000 for each of the last three years. Violators of the ordinance would initially receive verbal or written warnings. Afterward, monetary penalties could range from $100 to $500, depending on the number of violations. Kostielney noted that a two-year grace period for private businesses, which was discussed at a recent Council work session, was not included in the current version of the bill. Shaw Friedman, an attorney for the measure's main sponsors, Healthy Communities Initiative and Minority Health Coalition, said the provision was left out because there was no clear direction or consensus that the Council wanted that provision to be kept in. Friedman said he is hopeful of passage of the measure in its current form and praised the Council for the work it has put into the bill. In addition to discussions during many committee and work sessions, the Council conducted a public forum in September to solicit public opinion. If the measure is adopted, it will go into effect on April 10.Staff writer James Wensits: jwensits@sbtinfo.com (574) 235-6353